Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: binnmu
nmu libteam_1.12-2~bpo70+1 . amd64 . wheezy-backports . -m "Rebuild in a clean
wheezy environment."
this was not built in wheezy ...
libteam5 : Depends: libc6 (>= 2.14) but
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: binnmu
nmu nlopt_2.4.2+dfsg-1~bpo70+1 . amd64 . wheezy-backports . -m "Rebuild in a
clean wheezy environment."
it's currently uninstallable in wheezy-backports:
libnlopt0 : Depends: libc6 (>=
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: binnmu
nmu slurm-llnl_16.05.2-1 . amd64 . unstable . -m "Rebuild against librrd8."
Maintainer upload was built against librrd4.
Andreas
On 09/23/2016 03:54 PM, Matthias Klose wrote:
> No, you are not maintaining powerpcspe as a release architecture, and that's
> something different than building packages for some of the ports
> architectures.
> If you can get powerpcspe accepted as a release architecture, then maybe you
> gain
On 20.09.2016 23:46, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> On 09/20/2016 11:16 PM, Niels Thykier wrote:
>>- powerpc: No porter (RM blocker)
>
> I'd be happy to pick up powerpc to keep it for Stretch. I'm already
> maintaining powerpcspe which is very similar to powerpc.
No, you are not
On 23/09/16 11:40, Dominic Hargreaves wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 09:23:24AM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 00:34:15 +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>>
>>> Control: tags -1 confirmed
>>>
>>> Hi Dom!
>>>
>>> On 19/09/16 17:52, Dominic Hargreaves wrote:
On
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 09:23:24AM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 00:34:15 +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>
> > Control: tags -1 confirmed
> >
> > Hi Dom!
> >
> > On 19/09/16 17:52, Dominic Hargreaves wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 11:13:04AM +0100, Dominic
Processing control commands:
> retitle -1 transition: ros-ros-comm
Bug #838625 [release.debian.org] transition: ros-robot-model
Changed Bug title to 'transition: ros-ros-comm' from 'transition:
ros-robot-model'.
--
838625: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=838625
Debian Bug
Control: retitle -1 transition: ros-ros-comm
On 23/09/16 09:21, Jochen Sprickerhof wrote:
> retitle -1 transition: ros-ros-comm
>
> sorry, I accidentally wrote the wrong package name. Hope it's still ok.
Yes.
Emilio
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 00:34:15 +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> Control: tags -1 confirmed
>
> Hi Dom!
>
> On 19/09/16 17:52, Dominic Hargreaves wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 11:13:04AM +0100, Dominic Hargreaves wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 12:55:34PM +0200, Niko Tyni wrote:
Control: tags -1 confirmed
On 23/09/16 08:54, Jochen Sprickerhof wrote:
> Package: release.debian.org
> Severity: normal
> User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
> Usertags: transition
>
> Hi,
>
> librosbag got a small ABI change I would like to do a transition for.
Go ahead.
Emilio
Processing control commands:
> tags -1 confirmed
Bug #838625 [release.debian.org] transition: ros-robot-model
Added tag(s) confirmed.
--
838625: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=838625
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: transition
Hi,
librosbag got a small ABI change I would like to do a transition for.
Cheers Jochen
Ben file:
title = "ros-robot-model";
is_affected = .depends ~ "librosbag1d" | .depends ~
13 matches
Mail list logo